Daily News

Washington D.C. — Health and Human Services secretary Kathleen Sebelius says she was unaware of legal precedents confirming religious freedom, even as she sought a “balance” between believers' rights and the contraception mandate.

“I'm not a lawyer, and I don't pretend to understand the nuances of the constitutional balancing tests,” Sebelius told Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) during an April 26 hearing.

In her responses to subsequent questions, the secretary admitted she was unaware of Supreme Court cases stretching back several decades, in which religious believers' rights against government intrusion were upheld by the court.

Gowdy had asked Sebelius to explain the legal basis for what the secretary called an “appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services.”

“There are only three 'balancing' tests that I am aware of, when it comes to matters of constitutional significance,” Gowdy told Sebelius. The HHS secretary was questioned about the contraception rule during a House Education and Workforce Committee hearing on her department's 2013 budget.

Gowdy cited the “rational basis” test — which involves the legitimacy of a state's interest in legislation — as well as the criteria of “intermediate scrutiny” and “strict scrutiny,” which judges apply in order to gauge a law's relevance to fundamental state concerns.

When Sebelius responded that she did not understand the “nuances” of these tests, she was pressed by Gowdy to explain why she regarded the contraception mandate as constitutionally valid. The rule has been criticized for requiring religious groups to cooperate in providing sterilization and abortifacients.

“This mandate is going to wind up in the Supreme Court,” the South Carolina representative declared.

“We can talk about the politics all we want to. I want to talk about the law,” he told Sebelius. “I want to talk about balancing religious liberty with whatever else you think it's appropriate to balance it with — because you used the word 'balance.'”

“Which of those three tests is the appropriate test to use when considering religious liberty?”

“I am not going to wade into constitutional law,” Sebelius responded. “We are implementing the (health care reform) law that was passed by the Congress, signed by the president, which directed our department to develop a package of preventive health services for women.”

Sebelius said she agreed with the statement that government could not “force certain religious beliefs on its citizens.” When asked why this could not happen, she cited “the separation of church and state,” a phrase not found in the U.S. Constitution.

“It's the Constitution,” Gowdy replied, citing the First Amendment which guarantees the “free exercise of religion.”

Sebelius also agreed with Gowdy's statement that government could not “decide which religious beliefs are acceptable and not acceptable.” This, she acknowledged, is “part of our Constitution.”

“So, before this rule was promulgated,” Gowdy continued, referring to the federal contraception mandate, “did you read any of the Supreme Court cases on religious liberty?”

“I did not,” Sebelius responded.

The representative proceeded to ask the Health and Human Services secretary whether she was familiar with the outcomes of several cases pitting state interests against religious believers' claims under the First Amendment.

Sebelius agreed with Gowdy that the state had a “compelling interest in having an educated citizenry.”

“So when a state said, 'You have to send your children to school until a certain age,' and a religious group objected because they did not want to send their children to school until that certain age, do you know who won?” he asked. “It went to the Supreme Court.”

The 1970s case, Wisconsin v. Yoder, is considered a landmark in U.S. jurisprudence. Sebelius said she did not know its outcome. "The religious group won,” Gowdy informed her.

“I think the state has a compelling interest in banning animal sacrifice,” he continued. “When a state banned the practice of animal sacrifice and a religious group objected, it went to the Supreme Court. Do you know who won that?”

“I do not, sir,” Sebelius responded. She was again informed that the religious group prevailed, in the 1993 case of Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah.

“When a religious group objected to having a certain license tag on their cars, it went to the Supreme Court,” Gowdy said, in an apparent reference to the 1976 case of Wooley v. Maynard. “Do you know who won?”

Sebelius said she was unaware of this outcome as well. “The religious group won,” Gowdy told her.

The congressman also noted the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's recent 9-0 loss in the Supreme Court. The commission accused a Lutheran church and school of retaliatory firing, but lost the case when all nine justices upheld the school's right to choose employees on religious grounds.

“So when you say you 'balanced' things,” Gowdy said, “can you see why I might be seeking a constitutional balancing, instead of any other kind?”

“I do,” Sebelius said, “and I defer to our lawyers to give me good advice on the Constitution. I do not pretend to be a constitutional lawyer.”

“Is there a legal memo that you relied on?” Gowdy asked. “At least when Attorney General Holder made his recess appointments, there was a legal memo that he relied on. Is there one that you can share with us?”

“Attorney General Holder clearly runs the Justice Department and lives in a world of legal memos,” Sebelius responded, saying she “relied on discussions.”

South Carolina is involved in two pending lawsuits bearing on the Obama administration's health care reform law and the accompanying contraception mandate.

The first, against the Affordable Care Act as a whole, was heard by the Supreme Court in March. Its outcome is likely to determine the progress of a second lawsuit, brought by seven states and a number of Catholic ministries and individuals, specifically challenging the contraception mandate.

Comments

You go Gowdy!
Sibilius should not call herself a “Catholic.” And her only comeback is that she does not claim to be a constitutional lawyer? When you are evil, you will use every lie in the book, as ancient as the serpent himself!

I’d like to know if she attends a Catholic church and if she takes Holy Communion…

Posted by art kraft on Monday, Apr 30, 2012 11:49 AM (EDT):

I read my self into the church 4 years ago. agreeing with everything I could find on the church thru the church fathers the ccc,etc on pro-life etc. I “assumed” that most catholics were conservative in philosophy and fiscally.I went into schock as I discovered the number of pro-lifers standing on a corner were Catholic. Did they not know that virtually all members of the democratic party were pro death? I started carrying voting records and nrlc website info with me. Maybe now by reading the other posts some are starting to see the light. There is a definite war on the church. As F. Sheen said as goes the church so goes the world. so the destruction of the church by the democratic party is necessary, look at the rest of the world!!!

Posted by Bob Awerkamp on Monday, Apr 30, 2012 11:38 AM (EDT):

I have been asking this excommunication question of the Archbishop of Kansas City, Kansas for years. She actually entertained the infamous abortionist, Dr. Tiller in the Governor’s Mansion while she was our Governor. Maybe our Church leaders will start acting like leaders soon?

Posted by florin on Monday, Apr 30, 2012 9:59 AM (EDT):

Kathleen Sebelius has been told not to present herself for Holy Communion. I don’t know or understand why Nancy Pelosi is permitted to receive the Eucharist since she publicly and aggressively mocks the Bishops and the teachings of the Church and publicly asks Catholics to join her since she is right and the Church is wrong. Kathleen Sebelius was the close colleague and friend of George Tiller aka the baby killer because his specialty was terminating the lives of babies in the womb up until moments before natural birth. I believe Obama deliberately chose Catholics for important positions..Catholics who stood against the teachings of the Church on important issues, especially abortion. He will go as far as he can with the help of ‘Catholics’ like Sebelius, Biden, Pelosi, Sr. Keehan, et al…if he gets another 4 years in office so this coming election is crucial not only for our country but for our faith and for freedom of Religion. Cardinal George, I’ve been told, has warned that persecution of Catholics and other Christians is coming…is already here. So we need to get out and vote Obama out of office ...

Posted by EDWARD E. KULPIT on Sunday, Apr 29, 2012 6:46 PM (EDT):

Ms. Sebelius is blinded by her lofty office and has taken leave of the
common sense knowledge of her education and membership in the church Christ founded. Being Catholic cannot in future be the sole reason for
supporting a politician’s climb to any office. Incidentaly, her bishop
should invoke excommunication, if she does not immediately get this
remedied and publically admit to her lapse of judgement and resign.

America will be better off if we had more representatives in Congress like Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina.
God bless him!

Posted by JMJ on Sunday, Apr 29, 2012 11:34 AM (EDT):

If God wants to punish us even more, He will allow Obama to ‘stay’ in office and then Mrs. Sebelius, with her ‘catholic’ faith won’t have to worry about the Constitution, as it will be replaced officially with OBAMANISM, and she won’t have to face those politicians that dare to question her immoral laws, etc. that she and Obama are shoving down our throats, while mocking God. WE NEED TO STOP OBAMANISM, NOW!!! Psalm 108:8 (109:8 Catholic Bibles): “May his days be few; May another take his office”. +JMJ+

Posted by veritas on Sunday, Apr 29, 2012 10:12 AM (EDT):

As Father Benedict Groeschel said: “I am a traditional Catholic. Politically right now we have been driven out of the Democrat Party. You know, we did not leave the Party, the Party left us and I won’t vote for anyone who is not Pro-Life; or is pro-abortion, ANYONE, under no circumstance; and I think that it is awful when you grew up and belonged to a Party that was concerned, at least officially, about the poor and civil rights; but the Party has been co-opted into a lot of causes which I think are destructive to the Country and to the fabric of Society.”

Posted by I_M_Foreman on Saturday, Apr 28, 2012 7:09 PM (EDT):

A heretic is a heretic is a heretic. Enough with the niceties. What else do you call a person who willingly misleads the faithful. As for those who may think this is a little harsh then keep in mind that advocating abortion has more consequences to the baby than a heretic being called out for what they really are.

Posted by Eugene Weber on Saturday, Apr 28, 2012 6:18 PM (EDT):

Amazing! the Secretary seems to know that the PPACA is constitutional, but has no explanation as to how she derives such a conclusion. Yet, she is all too willing to sink the Catholic Church, of which she is a so-called member, in the muck and mire of a legal battle by the proposed enactment of it. Oh so utterly typical and reflective of the mentality of her boss man in regard to all matters constitutional.

Posted by Chris on Saturday, Apr 28, 2012 5:20 PM (EDT):

Just to be pedantically precise, “the First Amendment, which guarantees the free exercise of religion,” does so by reminding the government that it cannot interfere. It says “Congress shall make no law ...”; it does not say “The government gives you the right to ....”

Posted by Coast Ranger on Saturday, Apr 28, 2012 5:16 PM (EDT):

You can watch this exchange on YouTube. Gowdy utterly destroys Sebelius with knowledge and truth and all she can say over and over is “I don’t know.”

Posted by Tim on Saturday, Apr 28, 2012 11:47 AM (EDT):

Yeah, she never had a discussion with her staff lawyers… I am to believe that?

Posted by Mark on Saturday, Apr 28, 2012 10:58 AM (EDT):

Directors tend to be administration apologists more than individuals discerning the legality of such matters. They certainly raise the question of what true qualifications for many of these positions, as Mae up in Bushs choie of FEMA director. In my lifetime most people in charge of government agencies are under qualified. This HHS director is another clear example. Not offering a solution to this problem, as th epresident appoints these people and is their boss. What other outcome should we expect? Still sad, when it’s such an obvious case of prohibiting religious freedom that a layman like me can see it.

Posted by Joseph Metrick on Saturday, Apr 28, 2012 9:19 AM (EDT):

I’m just dumbfounded by people like Sebelius that profess to be Catholic and support such blatant attacks on the very belief system they say they’re a part of.

Posted by Teresa on Saturday, Apr 28, 2012 6:42 AM (EDT):

Hooray for Rep. Gowdy for taking this important line of questioning for Sebelius, who obviously knows nothing about key legal precedents for religious freedom in the US of A. I think Sebelius thought it would be smooth sailing here, too, since none of the mainstream media/press ever took her to task for this issue of constitutionally guaranteed right to religious freedom. Once again, Hip, Hip, Hooray for Representative Trey Gowdy of South Carolina!

Posted by Tammy on Saturday, Apr 28, 2012 1:01 AM (EDT):

This reads like a comedy!! and I think I want to kiss Trey Gowdy full on the lips for pointing out Sebelius’ idiocy so eloquently.
.
The sad thing is.. most of America is just as clueless as Ms. Kathleen. I’m so embarrassed that she calls herself a Catholic. Has she been excommunicated yet? Can we do it publicly and with much fanfare?

Posted by Mike Malone on Saturday, Apr 28, 2012 12:14 AM (EDT):

Sebelius is unaware all right….what a dupe.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.